Management strategies designed to improve grazing animal performance can influence feedlot performance and carcass traits both positively and negatively. In spite of the economic relevance of potential interactions between grazing and finishing performance, controlled experiments evaluating integrated production systems are limited in number. Effects of grazing treatments can result from, or be overshadowed by, changes in gut fill, thus making it difficult to assign precise costs to different phases of production. Published reports have considered the effects of stocking rate, duration of grazing, forage characteristics, supplementation, and growth-promoting implants on subsequent finishing performance. Improvements in cattle performance attributed to changes in stocking rate generally have been neutral to positive with respect to effects on finishing performance. Comparisons among forages have led to the suggestion that forage species may contribute to differences in gastrointestinal fill of grazing cattle, thereby influencing gain and efficiency during the subsequent finishing phase. Creep-feeding suckling calves generally has increased preweaning performance but has had relatively little influence on performance during the subsequent finishing phase. Grain supplementation of stocker cattle during the grazing period has improved grazing performance, but effects on subsequent feedlot performance have been inconsistent. Potential carryover effects from protein and mineral supplementation also have been inconclusive. Lack of congruence among studies is puzzling but may be the consequence of highly varied production systems, differences in experimental procedures, and changes in gut fill or mass of internal organs. Based on the studies reviewed, the expression or absence of compensatory growth during the finishing phase appears to be related to the nutritional quality of forages utilized in the grazing period, with higher quality forages tending to yield greater compensatory effects. The bulk of evidence with suckling cattle and stocker implants suggests that effects on subsequent finishing performance are minimal. Attention is drawn to the noticeable lack of research pertaining to integrated production systems. A more thorough understanding of the interactions among grazing nutrition and management, finishing performance, and carcass traits is needed to facilitate greater economic exploitation of these relationships.
The objective of these two feeding trials was to determine the associative effects of feeding steam-flaked grain sorghum (SFGS) in combination with steam-flaked (SFC), dry-rolled (DRC), or high-moisture (HMC) corn on growth performance and carcass characteristics in feedlot cattle. In Trial 1, 200 yearling heifers were blocked by weight, allotted to 25 pens, and fed one of five finishing diets (77% grain, 15% corn silage, and 8% supplement on a DM basis) for an average of 137 d. The grain combinations were 100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75, and 0:100 SFC:SFGS, respectively. Treatment had no effect on DMI (P > .05), but ADG, gain efficiency, and final live and hot carcass weights decreased linearly (P < .05) as the proportion of SFGS increased in the diet. Carcass backfat, quality grade, and liver abscess score were not affected (P > .05) by treatment. In Trial 2, 306 yearling steers were blocked by weight, allotted to 30 pens, and fed diets that contained 74.5% grain, 10% corn silage, 7.5% soybean meal, 4% tallow, and 4% supplement (DM basis) for an average of 139 d. The grain and grain combinations were 100% DRC, HMC, SFC, or SFGS and a 67%:33% combination of SFGS: DRC or SFGS:HMC. For steers fed diets containing a single source of grain, those fed SFC gained 7% more live weight and had a 7% higher gain efficiency (P < .05) than those fed DRC or HMC. Growth performance of steers fed SFGS was intermediate. Feeding grain combinations (67% SFGS:33% HMC or DRC) resulted in a 5 to 6% positive associative effect (P < .05) for ADG and gain efficiency. Carcass characteristics were not affected (P > .05) by treatment. We concluded that there were significant benefits (positive associative effects) when SFGS was fed in combination with DRC or HMC, but the effects were smaller when SFGS was fed in combination with SFC.
Seventy-two Holstein steers averaging 182 kg were assigned randomly to one of six treatment groups: 1) nonimplanted controls (C); 2) implanted with 36 mg of zeranol (Z); 3) implanted with 20 mg of estradiol benzoate and 200 mg of progesterone (EP); 4) implanted with 140 mg of trenbolone acetate (TBA); 5) implanted with 140 mg of trenbolone acetate plus 20 mg of estradiol benzoate and 200 mg of progesterone (TBA + EP); and 6) implanted with 140 mg of trenbolone acetate plus 36 mg of zeranol (TBA + Z). Each treatment group consisted of three replications of four animals per pen, which were implanted on d 0, 56, 112, and 168. Masculinity and muscling scores were assigned at 24 h preslaughter. Hide removal difficulty was scored by a plant supervisor. Quality and yield grade data were obtained at 24 h postmortem. Longissimus muscle (LM) steaks were removed and cooked for Warner-Bratzler shear (WBS) determinations and sensory panel (SP) evaluations. Over the entire feeding period (249 d), TBA + EP steers had higher (P less than .05) ADG than TBA + Z, TBA, and C steers. All treatments had higher (P less than .05) ADG than C, with the exception of TBA. The only feed efficiency differences were those following the 168-d implant time, when TBA steers were more (P less than .05) efficient than TBA + Z or C steers. The TBA + EP and TBA + Z steers were more (P less than .05) masculine and their hides were more (P less than .05) difficult to remove than those of EP and C steers. Carcass weights of TBA + EP steers were heavier (P less than .05) than those of TBA or C steers. The TBA + EP steers had larger (P less than .05) LM areas than Z, TBA, and C steers. Also, TBA + EP steers tended (P = .07) to have lower numerical yield grades than EP, Z, or C steers. Even though mean marbling scores and quality grades were similar (P greater than .05) among treatment groups, only 50% of TBA + EP carcasses graded low Choice or higher, compared with 100, 75, 82, 90, and 83% for C, TBA, Z, EP, and TBA + Z carcasses, respectively. The only meat palatability differences were that myofibrillar and overall tenderness scores tended to be lower (P = .07) for steaks from EP and TBA + Z than for steaks from Z and C groups.
We studied the effects of supplement CP concentration on performance and forage use of cattle allowed ad libitum access to ammoniated wheat straw. During two consecutive winters, crossbred beef cows in late gestation (n = 87 in 1990-1991, n = 84 in 1991-1992) were used in a randomized complete block design with three pens per treatment. Cows were stratified by weight, body condition score (BCS), age, and breed and randomly assigned within strata to 1) control (C, no supplement), or 2 kg/d of 2) low-protein (LP) supplement (12% CP), 3) moderate-protein (MP) supplement (20.1% CP), or 4) high-protein (HP) supplement (31.7% CP) (DM basis). The feeding period was 84 d in 1990-1991 and 60 d in 1991-1992. Supplementation (C vs LP, MP, or HP) increased (P < .01) cow weight gains (32.7 vs 60.7, 62.8, and 72.4 kg, respectively) and improved (P < .01) BCS. Calf birth weights, weaning weights, and ADG were not affected by treatment (P > or = .20). Average calving date, percentage of cows cycling at the start of the breeding season and percentage pregnant after a 60-d breeding season were also similar (P > .20) among treatments. Sixteen ruminally fistulated steers (482 kg, four steers per treatment) were blocked by weight and assigned to the same four supplements in a 30-d digestion trial. Supplementation increased (P < .01) digestible DMI and forage DMI (P < or = .04) and tended (P = .09) to increase digestible NDF intake but did not alter (P > or = .15) apparent DM or NDF digestibility.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.